14 teams at Regionals....Club
Mike Gerics
club....always....and figured that that is exactly the way it should be.
however....this past fall....i guess some teams bailed and no others filled
their spots, so the MA Open Div Reg had only 14 teams.
i got the word late, maybe on the drive up there.....
at first, i figured that the MA had turned into one of them lame assed
regions that never has the full 16 teams competing in the double elimination
brackets.
now.......i've decided that 14 teams is exactly the number of teams that
should make it to regionals!
the Warrior goal, here in our most recent rebuilding era, is ....to advance
to sunday play at regionals....
welp....when i found out that only 14 teams were headed to regionals and
that there would be 2 pools of 7 teams....i was fired up as heck to know
that we had achieved our team's season goal of playing on sunday, simply by
virtue of the format!!!!!
I enjoyed the opportunity to compete in 6 pool games....followed by a semi
and final for the ...uhm.... i dont even know where we finished....maybe in
the 7-8-9-10 bracket....maybe lower.
i liked that the big dogs had to actually play against the rest of us lowly
teams....it gave us a chance to see where we might one day be headed if we
continued to work hard on our games. It forced the top teams to play more
than their usual 2 super duper easy games followed by semis and finals.....
2 pools of 7 teams REWARDED every team that qualified for regionals, by
giving them plenty of games........tons of games crammed into the weekend.
14 teams at regionals, may very well be the way that it should be.
as a matter of fact.........how can we make that happen.
all regionals should be 14 teams.....two pools of 7....tons of games...tons
of reward for everyone that qualifies......force those top teams to compete
in more games rather than giving them that easy 4 game weekend..........make
them have to play a bunch of the teams in the region....
thoughts?
dusty
An issue I have with some of these formats is the drastic difference in
number of games from one format to the next. For example in the 14
team 2 advance option (used for MA regionals) you play 5 games on the
first day. Compare that to the 16 team double elim format in which you
play between 2 and 4 games on the first day (if you're a top-4 team
you'll play 3).
Most importantly, if you compare either of these formats to the upa
championship format in which the max number of games in a day is 3 with
significant breaks between games, you might ask an important question:
Why would a qualifying event be played under different rules than a
championship event?
Training for 5 high-level games in a day is different than training for
3 high-level games in a day. It seems to me that the way we currently
structure our playoff system rewards teams with deeper benches at
sectionals and regionals while rewarding teams with higher top-end
talent at nationals.
Aside from logistics, is there a logical explanation for this?
My gut reaction is that we either need to increase the games per day at
Nationals or decrese the games per day at series tournaments to make
the experiences analogous.
These are just quick thoughts as I've got a basketball game to get to,
but I'd enjoy some comments on the topic.
music on tap: irakere, best of
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
colinm...@gmail.com
similar result. Playing on a team that finished in the middle of the
pack, it was a great experience, as compared to our previous Regionals
appearance, where we played two games and then went home. I agree that
the <16 team formats that provide more games for each team give a more
rewarding experience on average for all the teams that attend. This is
favorable to the 2-and-out format in terms of promoting growth and
interest. At times when Regionals are held far away from some teams,
the 16th team may opt to just not attend, given the option to travel
700 miles, lose two games and go home. And if not replaced, that team
does a service to the majority of teams that do participate, by
changing the format.
Rich Johnston
believe this format has been used on the west coast with some
frequency, but I've never see it in the Mid Atlantic or college Metro
East regions. Most teams have 4 games on Saturday, then the number of
Sunday games varies with your team's position. This format only adds
one extra game for the top teams if things go to seed, allowing one
addition mid level team a chance to play them, but not stringing out
Saturday into a day that was more reminiscent of Sectionals than normal
Regionals. I definitely disliked the 14 team format, and hope it
doesn't happen again.
Rich
marb...@gmail.com
the number of teams. Like someone already said, pooled 16-team
brackets accomplish that goal, and you could always go crazy and have
two 8-team pools if you really wanted to. Besides, as long as you're
looking out for the little guy, more teams means more little guys get
to play.
Flo
dusty wrote:
> Quick thoughts:
>
> An issue I have with some of these formats is the drastic difference in
> number of games from one format to the next. For example in the 14
> team 2 advance option (used for MA regionals) you play 5 games on the
> first day. Compare that to the 16 team double elim format in which you
> play between 2 and 4 games on the first day (if you're a top-4 team
> you'll play 3).
Yes, there is a drastic difference. The formats committee tried to
reach some middle ground here (for instance with the 16 team pool
option), but some numbers (14) require a lot of games to achieve a
balanced format which fairly determines the "correct" teams to advance.
Some formats on the low end of #of games stem from tradition (16 team
double elim)---good formats, but below that said middle ground.
If we want all formats to have roughly the same number of meaningful
games per team, we would have to sacrifice quite a bit at other places
(fairness, seed independence etc.).
>
> Most importantly, if you compare either of these formats to the upa
> championship format in which the max number of games in a day is 3 with
> significant breaks between games, you might ask an important question:
>
> Why would a qualifying event be played under different rules than a
> championship event?
Very valid point. But does this mean that we need 3.5 day regionals? I
don't think this is an option.
>
> Training for 5 high-level games in a day is different than training for
> 3 high-level games in a day. It seems to me that the way we currently
> structure our playoff system rewards teams with deeper benches at
> sectionals and regionals while rewarding teams with higher top-end
> talent at nationals.
The way the talent level currently is, you don't play 5 high-level
games in one day at regionals (well... maybe in NW club open). And once
we reach a level which may require this, all regionals should be up to
16 teams, and we don't have 5 games in a day in those formats.
In most 16-team formats, you play a max of 7 games over 2 days. At
(club) nationals, you play up to 8 games in three days. In my
experience, 8 games in three days is just as taxing on your body as 7
games in two days. Add to that the better opponents at Nationals, and
Nationals requires more depth than regionals.
Flo.
Parinella
Mike Gerics wrote:
> i had always competed in 16 team Regional events, college and
> club....always....and figured that that is exactly the way it should be.
>
> however....this past fall....i guess some teams bailed and no others filled
> their spots, so the MA Open Div Reg had only 14 teams.
> i got the word late, maybe on the drive up there.....
>
> at first, i figured that the MA had turned into one of them lame assed
> regions that never has the full 16 teams competing in the double elimination
> brackets.
>
> now.......i've decided that 14 teams is exactly the number of teams that
> should make it to regionals!
>
One thing that is bad about 14 teams is that there are an odd number of
teams in each pool, meaning that someone always has a bye. Depending
on the strength of the teams and whether the seedings are good, this
could mean that the teams in the most important games of the weekend
had different routes. Perhaps one team had a bye and is rested while
the other team just played an overtime game.
Now, if you're going to drop from 16, it might be better to go to 12.
The big advantage over 14 (besides the more even schedule) is that you
need two fewer rounds to complete pool play (five vs seven;
alternatively, you can use fewer fields by giving teams byes). You can
complete a six team round robin and then have elimination rounds
without having to schedule very short rounds with no break in between.
Don Steg
> I think more games is a good thing, but that's not really relevant to
> the number of teams. Like someone already said, pooled 16-team
> brackets accomplish that goal, and you could always go crazy and have
> two 8-team pools if you really wanted to.
mmm... no, I don't think you could. not at Regionals anyway.
colinm...@gmail.com
used in the Central Club or Great Lakes College Regions, as far as I
know. In terms of looking out for the little guy, are we looking to
make sure the little guys have a good experience or simply that they
get to show up? There will certainly be "little guys" that prefer
either end, but making it a good experience seems like the better
option to me. In the extreme, I don't think 10 extra teams would jump
at the opportunity to travel to play one game and go home (if we could
figure out such a format). However, given a 16-team double elimination
format, providing some unofficial games for the "little guys" after
elimination would likely make for a better experience for them. Again,
my main concern is teams having to travel long distances, only to play
two games on Saturday and drive home. As it is, perhaps the teams that
aren't interested in doing this just refuse to come and get replaced by
teams that are. But given <16 team Regionals occuring, it seems that
there aren't replacement teams knocking at the door (unless the initial
team bails last minute, which can be pretty inconsiderate).
dusty
> Yes, there is a drastic difference. The formats committee tried to
> reach some middle ground here (for instance with the 16 team pool
> option), but some numbers (14) require a lot of games to achieve a
> balanced format which fairly determines the "correct" teams to advance.
> Some formats on the low end of #of games stem from tradition (16 team
> double elim)---good formats, but below that said middle ground.
Certainly.
> If we want all formats to have roughly the same number of meaningful
> games per team, we would have to sacrifice quite a bit at other places
> (fairness, seed independence etc.).
A question that this raises: Seed independence. If we are going
through all the trouble to make sure that the seeds don't matter so
much, why do we worry about seeding teams in the first place? Why not
a random draw?
> > Most importantly, if you compare either of these formats to the upa
> > championship format in which the max number of games in a day is 3 with
> > significant breaks between games, you might ask an important question:
> >
> > Why would a qualifying event be played under different rules than a
> > championship event?
>
> Very valid point. But does this mean that we need 3.5 day regionals? I
> don't think this is an option.
Well, the other way to look at that same issue is "Do we need more than
3 games per day at regionals?" Or "Do we need 3.5 days for Nationals?"
I've loved every moment of my Nationals experiences, but it is almost
completely different from every other tournament in every way. I mean
hell, we've finally got Observers! We're not sprinting from field to
field! Everyone is wearing matching uniforms (except for the guys who
still get away with non-matching shorts)! There are actually
scoreboards! There are regulation fields!
But more relevant to this discussion: You can focus on playing at a
high level of intensity and skill over a reasonable number of games
instead of focusing on not wasting your energy in mismatches.
> The way the talent level currently is, you don't play 5 high-level
> games in one day at regionals (well... maybe in NW club open). And once
> we reach a level which may require this, all regionals should be up to
> 16 teams, and we don't have 5 games in a day in those formats.
> In most 16-team formats, you play a max of 7 games over 2 days. At
> (club) nationals, you play up to 8 games in three days. In my
> experience, 8 games in three days is just as taxing on your body as 7
> games in two days. Add to that the better opponents at Nationals, and
> Nationals requires more depth than regionals.
Well, yes. But should that be taken into consideration when
determining formats? Do we take the talent level of teams into
consideration when designing formats? That seems not-quite-right to
me.
Sure, at Nationals you play 8 games over 3 days, but you get these
chunks of rest between games (45 minutes on the first two days and 2 or
3 hours on the third) that allow you to rest and recharge mentally as
well as physically. Whether you were in a blowout or a close game, you
still get that time off.
At Regionals you're often rushing from one game to the next with maybe
a 10-15 minute break (30 minutes is the max I recall-- maybe that was
the 16 team double-elim). Especially once you fall into the
"games-to-go" on Sunday where each team is fighting fopr survival
against evenly matched competition. If you're in a blowout you get
more time between games. Tight games *kill* you with no time to
recover. Tight games at Nationals don't destroy you for the next game
because you get the opportunity to recover no matter how long the game
takes. They take their toll over the days, but if you're intelligent,
you can recover a lot during the breaks.
Again, this makes it harder for mid-level teams to match up against the
top teams because the get wrecked beating up on each other before they
face the top dogs. If you look at the histories of many top-level
teams they sprung out of mid-level teams combining to avoid exactly
those sorts of games.
In any case, I appreciate the response, Flo. And as usual, I haven't
thought all of this through. I just find that the way tournament
formats affect the outcomes of not only individual games but also the
structure and strategy of teams is interesting.
music on tap: miles, birth of the cool
dusty.rhodes
at gmail.com
mpo...@gmail.com
tournaments at times. I think it makes sense there for a lot of the
reasons people have mentioned here - teams wanting to get in lots of
games, who know they're not going to Nationals, and don't necessarily
care much about making Regionals either.
Sun's Rising on a
you know ... really fucking hot. Like upper 90s in Scottsdale. But,
democracy rules. When ten teams indicate a preference for pool play,
you usually get pool play. As my captain wrote back to the list, "That
4th round should be sweet tomorrow. Good thinking 10 teams."